Second hint from DfT at new DMUs being procured

[ainsworth74]

Who would have paid for the leasing?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This would be the North of England which has those shiny new 350s, is getting cascaded 319s, and - hopefully - Pacer replacement?

1)....How many brand-new Class 350 were sent there and are they destined to stay in the North of England?

2)...How many of the Class 319 units are to be "cascaded", what is their age now and what upgrading has now been formally agreed that these units will receive prior to being placed in service in the North of England?

3)...Pacer replacement....please clarify your views on how you see the future service provision of the differing classes of the Class 142 units and the Class 143 and 144 units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1)....How many brand-new Class 350 were sent there and are they destined to stay in the North of England?

Can't remember how many, but they are to stay until the TPE full fleet replacement once electrification is complete. Then they are likely to go to LM, or whatever it's called then.

Neil

 

[deltic08]

Who would have paid for the leasing?

Is there a law that says stock has to be leased through a ROSCO and not bought outright and owned by a franchise?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there a law that says stock has to be leased through a ROSCO and not bought outright and owned by a franchise?

Well, both FirstGroup and Chiltern own Mk3s outright...

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can't remember how many, but they are to stay until the TPE full fleet replacement once electrification is complete. Then they are likely to go to LM, or whatever it's called then.

Neil

Thanks for that clarification of the eventual move to what is currently the LM franchise. The posting that I made response to did not fully clarify that matter.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Can't remember how many, but they are to stay until the TPE full fleet replacement once electrification is complete. Then they are likely to go to LM, or whatever it's called then.

Neil

Could they end up being split between two TOCs? Unlikely but still a possibility with LM potentially being split up. My gut feeling is that whichever toc takes over the LM runs over the WCML will be the one that gets them.

 

[Haydn1971]

1)....How many brand-new Class 350 were sent there and are they destined to stay in the North of England?

Let's also be clear that the "temporary" Class 350's 10x 4 car are servicing an intercity type route from Manchester Airport to Glasgow/Edinburgh which is already part services by newish Class 390's rather than servicing the painful commuter routes between the major cities which are currently services by pacers, sprinters, if you are lucky voyagers smelling of urine, or if you are really unlucky a stand all the way in a crush loaded 185

 

[455driver]

Is there a law that says stock has to be leased through a ROSCO and not bought outright and owned by a franchise?

So you are saying that a company that takes on a 7 year franchise would happily buy their own coaches if they were allowed!
Some questions-
How long would it take to spec and build the trains and then train the staff on them, that includes the fitters etc?
How much use would the company get out of the trains before the franchise expired?
What would they do with the trains once the franchise has expired?

I firmly believe this is one of the reasons the Government is sticking with 7 year franchises, anything over 15 years and the Companies could viably buy their own trains which would upset the leasing Companies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, both FirstGroup and Chiltern own Mk3s outright...

Neil

First group p*ssed off the DaFT when they pulled that trick (how many franchises have First group won since that decision?) and Chiltern had a 20 year franchise with a very loose specification!

 

[swt_passenger]

I agree, but wikipedia claims the 442's motors (if I recall correctly) came from the slam-door trains they replaced.

That's absolutely correct, and definitely not an unsubstantiated wiki 'claim'. The 4REP tractor units were gradually taken out of service to donate their traction equipment as the corresponding number of 442s were assembled and entered service.

 

[yorksrob]

First group p*ssed off the DaFT when they pulled that trick (how many franchises have First group won since that decision?) and Chiltern had a 20 year franchise with a very loose specification!

What a surprise. DfT digging its heals in to preserve a failed ideology. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[northwichcat]

Let's also be clear that the "temporary" Class 350's 10x 4 car are servicing an intercity type route from Manchester Airport to Glasgow/Edinburgh

Apparently the option of Crewe-Euston and Liverpool-Birmingham going to the WC franchise is being examined: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=108968

I wonder if that could result in new trains for those services and the 350/1s or 350/3s being sent North to enhance the Scottish services instead of the 350/4s being sent South.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apparently the option of Crewe-Euston and Liverpool-Birmingham going to the WC franchise is being examined: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=108968

I wonder if that could result in new trains for those services and the 350/1s or 350/3s being sent North to enhance the Scottish services instead of the 350/4s being sent South.

All things are possible. As I've suggested before, the general presumption that the 350/4s would definitely go to LM predates their speed increase to 110mph. IMHO that redefines the possible areas they could be used in.

Previously it was usually said they had to be temporary on the WCML because they were only 100 mph units, like the 185s. But that extra 10 mph makes a significant difference in how they can be pathed - as seen with the services now running via Weedon.

 

[3141]

What a surprise. DfT digging its heals in to preserve a failed ideology. Wouldn't be the first time.

We could ask: how many franchises have National Express won since 2004? How many franchises have Arriva won since 2007? The answer is small in both cases, but there's no reason to think it's anything other than that their bids weren't the best ones.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case is it a failed ideology? In Germany, where I believe those tendering for local services have much more commercial freedom, do they buy stock outright? With short contracts I doubt it.

Neil

 

[yorksrob]

In any case is it a failed ideology? In Germany, where I believe those tendering for local services have much more commercial freedom, do they buy stock outright? With short contracts I doubt it.

Neil

It is a failed ideology if a TOC takes the initiative to procure additional stock but gets penalised for it by Ministry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is a failed ideology if a TOC takes the initiative to procure additional stock but gets penalised for it by Ministry.

True, though I think it's far from clear that that has actually happened.

Neil

 

[yorksrob]

True, though I think it's far from clear that that has actually happened.

Neil

Indeed. It's possibly all hearsay. However, I can't help but remember how West Yorkshire Metro was forced to sell it's rolling stock to the ROSCO's, so it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[edwin_m]

In any case is it a failed ideology? In Germany, where I believe those tendering for local services have much more commercial freedom, do they buy stock outright? With short contracts I doubt it.

Neil

The original inventors of our franchising process were correct that a leasing market was needed because the franchises were and are much shorter than the life of the trains. If the franchisees owned the trains outright then they might be stuck with them if they didn't win next time round or win another franchise at a similar time that needed similar trains. Conversely, the new operator wouldn't be able to order the trains until they knew they had won, so there would either be a long delay before the franchise transfer while the trains were built or some arrangement to use the old trains for this period. I think some of this has happened in Germany but I don't know the details, and I believe in some of their more recent franchises the regional government has bought the trains for use by whoever wins, as with DLR and Metrolink in the UK.

The inventors of British rail privatisation correctly realised that creating a leasing market would get round these particular problems. Unfortunately the leasing market is imperfect in that the existing fleets are not always suitable for use on a different franchise, and there are virtually no trains off-lease which an operator can threaten to use if they feel they are not getting a good deal from the ROSCOs. Both of these are very different from the aircraft leasing market for example.

Part of the previous DMU order idea was for the Government to set up its own ROSCO, since none of the existing ones would buy a DMU that might be redundant within a decade. This also fits with the DfT's dislike of the ROSCOs, where they probably thought (rightly or wrongly) that by running their own they could prove that the commercial leasors were making excessive profits. However this might have introduced all sorts of further distortions into the leasing market - probably not a good idea for the body that chooses the franchisees to have a commercial interest in the outcome. It could also have made DfT less keen on electrification, since that might have led to them being landed with a fleet of expensive and useless DMUs.

 

[yorksrob]

If we're going to be left with a load of surplus DMU's it's likely to be the InterCity type ones that we've been churning out for years, not local trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we're going to be left with a load of surplus DMU's it's likely to be the InterCity type ones that we've been churning out for years, not local trains.

In any case, if we are left with surplus modern DMUs, might a conversion to electric, or failing that locomotive haulage, be a possible solution?

I can't see said DMUs getting scrapped. Or if they are, it'll be all the pre-1990 ones which are getting on a bit anyway, not the new ones.

Neil

 

[Kite159]

If we're going to be left with a load of surplus DMU's it's likely to be the InterCity type ones that we've been churning out for years, not local trains.

Although the lines which are not likely to see wiring, local style DMUs will be better than InterCity type. For example branch lines which will need new-ish DMUs at some time, the 150s are not going to last forever

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although the lines which are not likely to see wiring, local style DMUs will be better than InterCity type. For example branch lines which will need new-ish DMUs at some time, the 150s are not going to last forever

Depends what you mean by "local type". Most low-demand branch lines seem to manage fine with 153s, which means that 158s or 175s with end-doored layouts would also be fine - we're not talking about commuter services here, which would hopefully all, or mostly, be electric.

Then there are the 185s (overpowered, but some engines could be removed or derated), and the 170s, 171s and 172s, all of which have local style door layouts. (Seating is not so relevant as it's easy to change).

All that really leaves is Voyagers and Meridians, which as they are DEMUs might not be all that hard, if the economics of the situation change, to convert to EMUs or even loco-haul for use on secondary express services.

Even so, there are services which won't be fully wired for some time (if at all) where they would fit. For example, 5 car Voyager/Meridian derivatives would be good for the North Wales Coast. Or Liverpool to Nottingham if split from the Norwich run. Or Scottish long-distance routes.

We might end up scrapping 150s, 153s, 155s and 156s, but those are all getting on a bit so that's no big deal. But I'm sure there will be homes for all the current newer generations of DMU well into the future.

Neil

 

[Rhydgaled]

Depends what you mean by "local type". Most low-demand branch lines seem to manage fine with 153s, which means that 158s or 175s with end-doored layouts would also be fine - we're not talking about commuter services here, which would hopefully all, or mostly, be electric.

Then there are the 185s (overpowered, but some engines could be removed or derated), and the 170s, 171s and 172s, all of which have local style door layouts. (Seating is not so relevant as it's easy to change).

All that really leaves is Voyagers and Meridians, which as they are DEMUs might not be all that hard, if the economics of the situation change, to convert to EMUs or even loco-haul for use on secondary express services.

Even so, there are services which won't be fully wired for some time (if at all) where they would fit. For example, 5 car Voyager/Meridian derivatives would be good for the North Wales Coast. Or Liverpool to Nottingham if split from the Norwich run. Or Scottish long-distance routes.

We might end up scrapping 150s, 153s, 155s and 156s, but those are all getting on a bit so that's no big deal. But I'm sure there will be homes for all the current newer generations of DMU well into the future.

Neil

The Voyager family have a number of problems which would make cascading them difficult. The idea of electrifying them by adding pantograph cars has been abandoned due to cost reasons apparently, the driving vehicles with their streamlined 125mph cabs waste alot of space and compared to sprinters they cost the earth.

 

[WatcherZero]

All things are possible. As I've suggested before, the general presumption that the 350/4s would definitely go to LM predates their speed increase to 110mph. IMHO that redefines the possible areas they could be used in.

Previously it was usually said they had to be temporary on the WCML because they were only 100 mph units, like the 185s. But that extra 10 mph makes a significant difference in how they can be pathed - as seen with the services now running via Weedon.

Idea they would be temporary wasn't due to speed, it was due to them being a microfleet when new stock was procured for TPE North they could be replaced with a homogenous fleet and reinforce LM. This was also why the ROSCO that owns them insisted on testing in multiple with all the LM variants delaying their arrival at TPE.

 

[Kettledrum]

If we're going to be left with a load of surplus DMU's it's likely to be the InterCity type ones that we've been churning out for years, not local trains.

The thought of potentially lots of surplus rolling stock is probably going to have lots of passengers scratching their heads in bewilderment.

I see and hear of so many situations where trains are full to bursting - with all seats taken, and trains that are far to short - in terms of passenger demand, and also the capacity of the platforms. The displaced Inter-City type rolling stock will be an excellent opportunity to address that - particularly for XC routes such as Nottingham - Cardiff, Liverpool - Norwich, Manchester to Bournemouth and the NE to South West. I can no shortage of demand for the class 222 Voyagers at all in the medium term.

I can't see all the HSTs being used in future though. Some will find use in Scotland, and some could be used on innovative open access routes. Perhaps even Waterloo to the West Country via Basingstoke and Salisbury. Perhaps someone will revive the Wrexham and Shropshire idea with HSTs.

But given the age of some of the HSTs, any that remain surplus would be right at the end of their useful lives anyway, so it shouldn't be seen as a big problem.

The challenge of the rail industry will be how to use the stock wisely to meet the aspirations of passengers.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The Voyager family have a number of problems which would make cascading them difficult. The idea of electrifying them by adding pantograph cars has been abandoned due to cost reasons apparently, the driving vehicles with their streamlined 125mph cabs waste alot of space and compared to sprinters they cost the earth.

Just comparing the fronts of 221s with 380s and Desiro Citys (forgot the class number), it looks like a new build of 221s (if it ever were to happen) would possibly need to have the same design and size cabs to meet the crash regs

 

[northwichcat]

I can't see said DMUs getting scrapped. Or if they are, it'll be all the pre-1990 ones which are getting on a bit anyway, not the new ones.

That's a hell of a lot of DMUs to scrap and they won't be scrapped just by existing and proposed electrification projects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a hell of a lot of DMUs to scrap and they won't be scrapped just by existing and proposed electrification projects.

Exactly. My point was that we don't have to worry about there being surplus DMUs, as other than old ones there won't be any surplus.

Neil

 

[alexl92]

Surely a surplus of DMUs (even old ones, except Pacers) would actually be a good idea? If the lines go down on an electrified commuter route (e.g. Ilkley) having surplus DMUs in store to cover it might be a great thing.